* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### DEC 14 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. WESLEY ALLEN DORROUGH,

Defendant - Appellant. No. 99-7077 (D. Ct. No. 89-CR-21-S) (E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , McKAY , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and the appellate record , this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument wouldnot be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered sub mitted without oral argument. Defendant Dorrough appeals from an order of the dis trict court denying his motion for a modification of sentence pursuant to 1 8 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Defendant appeals on the ground that the district c ourt erred in refusing to modify- 2 -

his sentence on the basis of Amendment 484 to the U nited States Sentencing Guidelines. We AFFIRM. Defendant has appealed to this court several times. He originally appealed his conviction and sentence after a jury trial wher e he was found guilty of several counts related to the manufacturing and distributio n of amphetamines. We affirmed. United States v. Dorrough , 927 F.2d 498, 500-02 (10th Cir. 1991). In that appeal, defendant contended that the waste pro ducts of an on-going amphetamine manufacturing process should not be inc luded in calculating his base offense level. Id. at 502. We rejected that claim. Id. In 1991, defendant filed a motion to vacate his sen tence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court, upon the recomm endation of a magistrate judge, denied that motion. On appeal to this court , we found that defendant had not been denied effective assistance of counsel. Dorrough v. United States , No. 94-7071, 1995 WL 43595, at *1 (10th Cir. Feb. 2, 19 95). However, we remanded defendant’s case to the district court for a determ ination whether Amendment 484 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines warrante d recalculation of his sentence. Id. at *2. On remand, the district court considered t he sentencing guideline amendment and declined to disturb the sentence previously imposed. Defendant Dorrough appealed that determination, and we affirmed. United States v. Dorrough , 84 F.3d 1309, 1310-12 (10th Cir.), cert. denied , 519 U.S. 987- 3 -

(1996). In 1997, defendant filed another motion to vacate h is sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In that case, defendant assertedthat his attorney at resentencing was ineffective for several reasons. The district court denied both defendant’s motion and a certificate of appealabili ty. We also denied defendant a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appe al. Defendant then filed a motion for modification of s entence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Defendant again sought to hav e the district court recalculate his sentence by applying Amendment 484 to the sente ncing guidelines. The district court denied the motion on the ground thatthe sentencing issue had already been raised and rejected by the district co urt and by this court in prior proceedings. We agree. We review the district court’s decision whether to reduce defendant’s sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Telman , 28 F.3d 94, 96 (10th Cir. 1994). The issues rais ed by defendant in this appeal are exactly the same issues that he has rais ed in various ways in several appeals to this court. When we remanded this case, the district court considered the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and reject ed defendant’s argument that his sentence should be recalculated in light of Amendment 484. See United States v. Dorrough , 84 F.3d 1309, 1310-12 (10th Cir.), cert. denied , 519 U.S. 987- 4 -

(1996). On appeal, we found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to recalculate defendant’s sentence. Id. at 1311-12. Similarly, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretio n in denying defendant’s motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Defendant is admonished that the issues he raised b efore the district court and in this appeal are, though cast slightly differ ently, the same arguments that he raised in his previous case. No further filings re garding defendant’s sentence will be allowed without leave of the district court. AF FIRMED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT,
Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge